Podbean Podcast Site Category :   General   Tags :                             

January 23 2012

NoodleCast #114: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

Filed under: Uncategorized — dianahsieh @ 10:00 am

On Sunday, 22 January 2012, I broadcast a new episode of my live Philosophy in Action Webcast, where I answer questions on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a virtuous, happy, and free life in a live, hour-long webcast. The webcast is broadcast live every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. In the webcast, I broadcast on video, Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers is on audio, and the audience is in a text chat.

As usual, if you can't attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you'll join the live webcast, because that's more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 22 January 2012

Listen Now

    Duration: 1:11:37
Download the Episode Subscribe to the Feed The Segments: Episode: 22 January 2012

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

Lately, I've been working on the Philosophy in Action Website. Also... Save the dates! SnowCon 2012 will be held from March 15 to 18th, likely based in Frisco, Colorado. We'll play in the snow during the day, then enjoy informal lectures and discussions in the evening.

Question 1: Acquittals of the Guilty Versus Convictions of the Innocent (3:15)

Why is punishing an innocent man worse than failing to punish a guilty man? English jurist William Blackstone said that "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." What does this mean, and is it true? Is some higher ratio of wrongly-punished to wrongly-released acceptable?

My Answer, In Brief: Tto convict an innocent person involves the same wrongs as acquitting guilty person, plus more. That’s why proper justice system presumes innocence, as well as limits and corrects errors of by scrupulous objectivity.

Links:

Question 2: The Morality of the Death Penalty (15:37)

Is the death penalty moral? I understand why people are opposed to the death penalty when there might be genuine doubt as to whether the accused person really committed the crime. Certainly, we've seen cases where DNA evidence has exonerated someone who was convicted several years ago for a crime they didn't actually commit. But if someone confesses to first degree murder and if there's incontrovertible physical evidence to confirm their guilt, is the death penalty then appropriate?

My Answer, In Brief: To impose the death penalty for murder (and perhaps other heinous crimes) is morally proper, if the possibility of error in the criminal conviction can be eliminated. To eliminate not just "reasonable doubt" but also any "residual doubt" can be used to distinguish cases in which such errors have been excluded.

Links:

Question 3: Alternatives to America (45:33)

What other countries besides America have a relatively healthy sense of life? Suppose America takes a bad turn politically and I need to relocate to another country. What other countries still have a relatively healthy "sense of life" and decent culture – in that they respect reason, accomplishment, and productiveness – even if their politics are left-leaning? Over the past few months, I've heard various people discuss Canada, New Zealand, Costa Rica, China, and India as possible places to relocate to. What do you think of the cultures of those countries?

My Answer, In Brief: I'm not the right person to answer that question. However, I'm committed to staying in the United States, absent some disaster, because I regard America as the best hope for reason and freedom. Fight for it!

Links:

Question 4: Choosing a Place to Live (54:05)

Is it rational to value good weather over good politics when choosing a place to live? I currently live in a state with fairly good politics, with respect to taxes, gun rights, and so on. However, I have friends who live in California who say that the weather there is so good, that it's worth it to them even if the taxes are high, the gun laws are terrible, and the overall political climate is abysmal. Is it rational to value something like good weather over good politics in choosing a place to live?

My Answer, In Brief: A person should judge where to live in the United States based on his whole range of values, not solely on the differences of degree between state governments.

Links:

Rapid Fire Questions (58:32)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

  • What is the mistaken assumption in the question, "What is the purpose of life?" Is, "Does life have a purpose?" or "Can life have a purpose?" better?
  • Where should a person interested in learning about Objectivism start?
  • What do you think of what happened when the Costa Concordia ran aground?
  • What do you think of Chris Christie?
  • What does it mean to "assume positive intent"?
Conclusion (1:10:28)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it's not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we're doing, please contribute to the webcast's tip jar!

If you'd like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you've contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we're so grateful for that! Also, whether you're able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.

Listen Now:


icon for podbean  Standard Podcasts [01:11:37m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (181)

Comments Off   |   *****(0 ratings)

January 16 2012

NoodleCast #113: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

Filed under: Uncategorized — dianahsieh @ 8:00 am

On Sunday, 15 January 2012, I broadcast a new episode of my live Philosophy in Action Webcast, where I answer questions on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a virtuous, happy, and free life in a live, hour-long webcast. The webcast is broadcast live every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. In the webcast, I broadcast on video, Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers is on audio, and the audience is in a text chat.

As usual, if you can't attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you'll join the live webcast, because that's more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 15 January 2012

Listen Now

    Duration: 1:07:28
Download the Episode Subscribe to the Feed The Segments: Episode: 15 January 2012

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

Paul and I spent last week having fun in the snow at Beaver Creek, and now... back to work!

Question 1: SOPA and Online Piracy (4:09)

Should SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) be supported or opposed? SOPA was recently introduced to the US House of Representatives, then shelved temporarily, and many people are urging businesses and their representatives to oppose it. Would the bill promote prosperity and creativity by protecting copyright? Or does it justify internet censorship and cripple free access of information through online media?

My Answer, In Brief: SOPA and PIPA claim to protect copyright, but in fact, they'd break the fundamental architecture of the internet, subject innocent people to major legal battles, destroy large internet sites, and establish government control over the internet. To top it off, these laws would not stop pirates. They should be opposed.

Links:

Question 2: Mutual Unprovable Accusations of Wrongdoing (26:25)

How should a rational person evaluate unproven accusations of serious wrongdoing about people he deals with? I recently heard some information about a business associate's dealings with another of his associates that, if true, would make me reconsider doing business with him. However, his side of the story is that the other person is the one who acted wrongly. This is a serious matter, and it's clear that one or both of them acted very badly, but since I was not personally involved and the only information I have is of a "he said/she said" nature, I am not sure how to decide what I should do. Am I right to consider the information I heard at all, since I can't confirm it?

My Answer, In Brief: Such dilemmas of moral judgment are difficult to navigate, and ideally, you either know enough about the characters of people in question or you can gather that information in order to come to an informed judgment. If you must choose between the two people now, then you should do so provisionally, as best as you can.

Question 3: Dealing with Temperamental People (34:36)

Should people be willing to "walk on eggshells" around temperamental people? Some people – often very talented – are known to be highly temperamental. They'll explode in anger if others disagree with them, make innocent mistakes, or just act differently than they'd prefer. Is that a moral failing, and if so, what is its source? How should people around them act? When and how much should others try to placate them?

My Answer, In Brief: Temperamental people indulge their emotions when they don't get their way because they don't respect and value other people as autonomous individuals. If that irrationality is entrenched, then the best course is likely to refuse to deal with the person.

Question 4: Judging Young Adults Fairly (47:43)

Is it fair to judge a person's intellect or other qualities of character purely based on his age? I am 16 and am facing problems with some people who seem to think that my views aren't clear even to me just because "I am a lazy teen with no experience in life." Is that unjust? Should I try to show them they are wrong about me or is it not worth it? If I should try, how might I be effective?

My Answer, In Brief: It's wrong to make moral judgments based on statistics, and young adults deserve to be treated with respect, even if adults know that they have much to learn.

Rapid Fire Questions (54:46)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

  • Do you think that the patent lawsuits are getting a little out of hand?
  • Could Obama be effectively neutralized by gridlock?
  • What do you think of Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow's outspoken love for Jesus?
  • Is it ever moral to wish that someone were dead (assuming you don't actually plan on acting on that wish or otherwise violating someone's rights)?
  • Ayn Rand said she didn't have much of an opinion on certain topics such as evolution or gun control. Does that mean that there is no Objectivist position on theses issues?
Conclusion (1:06:02)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it's not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we're doing, please contribute to the webcast's tip jar!

If you'd like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you've contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we're so grateful for that! Also, whether you're able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.

Listen Now:


icon for podbean  Standard Podcasts [01:07:28m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (203)

Comments Off   |   *****(0 ratings)

January 9 2012

NoodleCast #112: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

Filed under: Uncategorized — dianahsieh @ 8:00 am

On Sunday, 8 January 2012, I broadcast a new episode of my live Philosophy in Action Webcast, where I answer questions on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a virtuous, happy, and free life in a live, hour-long webcast. The webcast is broadcast live every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. In the webcast, I broadcast on video, Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers is on audio, and the audience is in a text chat.

As usual, if you can't attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you'll join the live webcast, because that's more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 8 January 2012

Listen Now

    Duration: 1:04:12
Download the Episode Subscribe to the Feed The Segments: Episode: 8 January 2012

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

Welcome to 2012! Sadly, our friend and hero Objectivist historian John Lewis died on Tuesday. See John Lewis, Hero and Friend by me and Remembering John Lewis by Paul Hsieh. On the two week break, I've been doing lots of blogging at NoodleFood, plus updates to the Philosophy in Action. Mostly, I'm glad to be webcasting again!

Question 1: Tenacity in Pursuit of Goals (3:55)

How can I become more tenacious in pursuit of my goals? I find that I give up too easily on some of my goals, particularly when success is far away and much effort is required now. What can I do to make myself more tenacious?

My Answer, In Brief: Tenacity is an important quality of character to cultivate, but it must be used selectively. If tenacity is a problem for you, don’t wallow in guilt: find creative ways to motivate self.

Links:

Question 2: Sex Without Love (19:19)

Is sex without love or romance irrational? Is it wrong to have sex with someone that you don't love – or don't love yet? (Here, assume that the person isn't unworthy, but just that you're not in love.) Couldn't that be the start of romance? What if you don't have any intentions of pursuing a romantic relationship with this person?

My Answer, In Brief: Sex is an inherently intimate act, requiring well-grounded respect, trust, and affection — even if not love.

Links:

Question 3: The Ethics of Helping Inept Co-Workers (31:21)

Is it moral to help inept co-workers? On my team at work, we have only a very few people who use their time productively. We all get paid for 8 hours of "work", every day, but most of my team would rather talk on their phone, hide from management, and underperform at their job. We also belong to a union, which makes it harder for management to fire the ones who don't work despite being informed about the situation. I often find myself in the position of helping these people, or going in behind them and fixing their work. I am beginning to feel taken advantage of, and am getting fed up with most of my co-workers. Is it moral to continue helping people who do not take their own work seriously?

My Answer, In Brief: There’s no injustice or other moral problem with doing mission-critical work for your company, even if not your area, provided that you're honest and compensated fairly.

Question 4: Giving Back to Your Communities (37:17)

Is a person ever obliged to "give back to the community"? Businesses often speak about their charitable work as "giving back to the community." I know that's wrong, because they didn't take anything from it in the first place. But when a person benefits from a certain group or organization, should he "give back" to it by volunteering his time or donating his money? Why or why not?

My Answer, In Brief: A person isn’t obliged to volunteer at every opportunity, but he should want to volunteer for organizations that he derives great value from – for self-interested reasons.

Links:

Rapid Fire Questions (55:27)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

  • Why was Rick Perry not included in your discussion of four candidates?
  • What did you think of Herman Cain?
  • Would Hillary Clinton have been a better president than Obama?
  • Does the fact that Newt Gingrich takes Catholicism seriously suggest that he is at least as bad as Mitt Romney?
  • Is Ron Paul a closet Christian dominionist?
  • By not voting for the Republican candidate, are you voting for Obama, in effect?
Conclusion (1:03:56)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it's not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we're doing, please contribute to the webcast's tip jar!

If you'd like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you've contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we're so grateful for that! Also, whether you're able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.

Listen Now:


icon for podbean  Standard Podcasts [01:04:12m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (190)

Comments (0)   |   *****(0 ratings)

December 19 2011

Noodlecast #111: Testimony on Campaign Finance

Filed under: Uncategorized — dianahsieh @ 10:00 pm

Last Thursday, Ari Armstrong, Paul Hsieh, and I testified at the Secretary of State's hearing on the proposed changes to Colorado's campaign finance rules. Ari was kind enough to record and post video of that testimony. (That's a huge amount of work, so thank you, thank you, Ari!)

I've compiled our testimony into a single podcast, and you'll find the videos below too. (I didn't include Matt Arnold's testimony for Clear the Bench Colorado in the podcast, but the video is at the bottom of this post.)

Listen Now

    33:05 minutes
Download This Episode Subscribe to the Feed

My testimony for the Coalition for Secular Government:

Paul Hsieh's testimony for Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM):

Ari Armstrong's testimony:

Again, although I didn't include it in the podcast, here's Matt Arnold's testimony for Clear the Bench Colorado:

Listen Now:


icon for podbean  Standard Podcasts [00:33:05m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (160)

Comments (0)   |   *****(0 ratings)

NoodleCast #110: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

Filed under: Uncategorized — dianahsieh @ 10:00 am

On Sunday, 18 December 2011, I broadcast a new episode of my live Philosophy in Action Webcast, where I answer questions on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a virtuous, happy, and free life in a live, hour-long webcast. The webcast is broadcast live every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. In the webcast, I broadcast on video, Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers is on audio, and the audience is in a text chat.

We're taking the next two weeks off, so this is the last webcast of 2011! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

As usual, if you can't attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you'll join the live webcast, because that's more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 18 December 2011

Listen Now

    Duration: 1:12:53
Download the Episode Subscribe to the Feed The Segments: Episode: 18 December 2011

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

This week, Ari Armstrong, Paul Hsieh, and I attended and testified at a campaign finance hearing. You can submit written testimony until Friday December 23rd. Also, look for Ari's and my article on abortion in The Objective Standard this week.

Question 1: Rationality in Face of Overwhelming Emotions (4:24)

How can a person regain his rationality in the face of overwhelming emotions? On occasion, I find my rational judgment swamped by strong emotions like anger and anxiety. In such cases, my thinking seems distorted by my emotions. While in the grip of such emotions, what can I do to re-establish my powers of rational thought? Also, how can I prevent myself from saying or doing things that I'll later regret?

My Answer, In Brief: You need not be at the mercy of your emotions: you can take charge of own mind in friendly way. So when your emotions rage out of control, you should (1) notice them, (2) analyze them, (3) work to defuse them, and (4) later, prevent the same from happening again.

Question 2: The Value of Reading Literature (19:20)

What value do you gain from reading literature? I've never much connected with literature, particularly not the classics. I know that you read them routinely. What value do you find in them? Or, what am I missing?

My Answer, In Brief: Literature isn't a value for everyone, but it can be an amazing window into other lives and other worlds, as well as a source of inspiration.

Links:

  • Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte
  • Pride and Prejudice, Persuasion, and Mansfield Park by Jane Austen
  • North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell
  • The Woman in White by Wilkie Collins
  • The Hunchback of Notre Dame by Victor Hugo
  • The Iliad by Homer
  • Martin Eden and The Sea Wolf by Jack London
  • Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe
Question 3: Balancing Introspection and Productive Work (34:13)

How can I achieve a better balance between introspection and productive work? Particularly I've made some mistake, I'll get wrapped up in the process of introspection until I get the problem sorted out. However, that consumes time – and often my projects suffer and I miss deadlines. How can I find a better balance between these two important activities?

My Answer, In Brief: You should cultivate the discipline required to do less exciting work, but be sure to take the time to introspect. Also, deal with your mistakes in sensible way, with a focus on fixing any problems caused and preventing repetition.

Question 4: Optimism or Pessimism about the Future (40:59)

Should we be optimistic or pessimistic about the future of the culture? What do you think will happen to the culture in the next 20 to 50 years? Are you optimistic or pessimistic – and why? What do you think the value and certainty of such predictions based on philosophy are?

My Answer, In Brief: I'm pessimistic, because I see the direction in which the world is headed, particularly on economic issues. But not depressed, because I'm doing what I can and enjoying that.

Links:

Rapid Fire Questions (57:30)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

  • If our emotions are affected by chemicals and other factors out of our control, does this call into question whether rationality is normal? In other words, do we need to learn how to reason?
  • Why care about the drug war, when just about every politician is bad on that issue?
  • Why worry about the president's view of abortion given that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land?
  • What should one think of a candidate that shifts positions?
  • Do you think that private sector experience is a plus in a politician?
  • Don't you think another four years of Obama would all but guarantee a collapse of the last vestiges of the American republic?
  • Should the US be an ally with Saudi Arabia?
  • What are your thoughts on Chris Hitchens' death?
Conclusion (1:11:46)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it's not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we're doing, please contribute to the webcast's tip jar!

If you'd like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you've contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we're so grateful for that! Also, whether you're able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.

Listen Now:


icon for podbean  Standard Podcasts [01:12:53m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (208)

Comments (0)   |   *****(0 ratings)

December 11 2011

NoodleCast #109: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

Filed under: Uncategorized — dianahsieh @ 12:00 pm

On Sunday, 11 December 2011, I broadcast a new episode of my live Philosophy in Action Webcast, where I answer questions on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a virtuous, happy, and free life in a live, hour-long webcast. The webcast is broadcast live every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. In the webcast, I broadcast on video, Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers is on audio, and the audience is in a text chat.

As usual, if you can't attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you'll join the live webcast, because that's more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 11 December 2011

Listen Now

    Duration: 1:09:47
Download the Episode Subscribe to the Feed The Segments: Episode: 11 December 2011

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

On Wednesday, Ari Armstrong and I spoke about Colorado's campaign finance laws at Liberty on the Rocks in Denver. We'll be testifying on Thursday in favor of the proposed rule changes. That has been a huge amount of work for both of us.

Question 1: An Early Look at the 2012 Election (3:46)

What's your view of the upcoming 2012 election? By what standards do you judge the presidential candidates?

My Answer, In Brief: In a presidential candidate, I'm not looking for either John Galt or "Anyone But Obama." I'm looking for someone who will do more good than harm to the cause of liberty in America.

Links:

Question 2: Mitt Romney for US President (11:14)

Should I support Mitt Romney for US President? What's the proper evaluation of his principles and record on the budget and the debt, health care, foreign policy, immigration, the drug war, abortion, and gay marriage? Does Romney deserve the vote of advocates of individual rights in the primary or the general election?

My Answer, In Brief: Mitt Romney is a smooth talker, but his proposal reveal that he has no understanding of individual rights or the economic problems facing America. He's no better than Obama – and likely worse, because the opposition will vanish. I cannot recommend voting for him in the primary or the general election.

Links:

Question 3: Newt Gingrich for US President (20:28)

Should I support Newt Gingrinch for US President? What's the proper evaluation of his principles and record on the budget and the debt, health care, foreign policy, immigration, the drug war, abortion, and gay marriage? Does Gingrinch deserve the vote of advocates of individual rights in the primary or the general election?

My Answer, In Brief: Newt Gingrich is explicitly theocratic, and a major threat to the separation of church and state. He advocates and practices "active governance," meaning right-wing social engineering, not liberty. Like Obama, he is enamored of bold transformative ideas, which could be okay or horrible for liberty. I cannot recommend voting for him in the primary or the general election.

Links:

Question 4: Ron Paul for US President (32:29)

Should I support Ron Paul for US President? What's the proper evaluation of his principles and record on the budget and the debt, health care, foreign policy, immigration, the drug war, abortion, and gay marriage? Does Paul deserve the vote of advocates of individual rights in the primary or the general election?

My Answer, In Brief: Ron Paul is not even libertarian, but a neo-confederate conservative Christian, albeit with some grasp of basic economics. He's a rationalist, driven by ideology, and not open to facts. He would be very dangerous to elect as president, not just for actual policies, but as a supposed advocate of liberty. I cannot recommend voting for him in the primary or the general election.

Links:

Should I support Gary Johnson for US President? What's the proper evaluation of his principles and record on the budget and the debt, health care, foreign policy, immigration, the drug war, abortion, and gay marriage? Does Johnson deserve the vote of advocates of individual rights in the primary or the general election? Also, should supporters of Gary Johnson vote for him on a Libertarian Party ticket?

My Answer, In Brief: Gary Johnson is not John Galt. However, he's fundamentally oriented toward facts, plus he has good basic principles about liberty. Alas, he was shut out from the race by the media and the establishment GOP. I recommend voting for him in the primary, as well as in the general election, if he runs as the Libertarian Party candidate. I still reject the Libertarian Party, but a protest vote can be delimited to endorse him and not the party.

Links:

Rapid Fire Questions (1:06:19)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

  • What do you think of Jon Huntsman for president?
  • Would you ever vote for Obama, e.g. against Santorum?
  • What do you think about the upcoming debate with Donald Trump?
Conclusion (1:08:42)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it's not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we're doing, please contribute to the webcast's tip jar!

If you'd like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you've contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we're so grateful for that! Also, whether you're able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.

Listen Now:


icon for podbean  Standard Podcasts [01:09:47m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (238)

Comments (0)   |   *****(0 ratings)

December 5 2011

NoodleCast #108: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

Filed under: Uncategorized — dianahsieh @ 12:00 pm

On Sunday, 4 December 2011, I broadcast a new episode of my live Philosophy in Action Webcast, where I answer questions on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a virtuous, happy, and free life in a live, hour-long webcast. The webcast is broadcast live every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. In the webcast, I broadcast on video, Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers is on audio, and the audience is in a text chat.

As usual, if you can't attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you'll join the live webcast, because that's more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 4 December 2011

Listen Now

    Duration: 1:05:07
Download the Episode Subscribe to the Feed The Segments: Episode: 4 December 2011

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

This week, I submitted a proposal for a talk on the follies of animal rights to the upcoming Ancestral Health Symposium in Boston in August. Ari Armstrong and I reviewed the galley proofs of our article on abortion rights for The Objective Standard. On Wednesday, Ari and I will discuss Colorado's campaign finance laws at Liberty on the Rocks in Denver.

Question 1: The Principle of Sustainability (4:13)

What's wrong with the principle of sustainability? In the discussion of "sustainable agriculture" in your October 9th webcast, you didn't explain the problem with the basic principle of the "sustainability movement," namely "that we must meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Doesn't that just mean respecting rights? If not, what does it mean and why is it wrong?

My Answer, In Brief: The principle of sustainability must be understood in its proper ideological context of collectivism, egalitarianism, and environmentalism. Understood that way, it's clearly demanding that people not exploit finite resources for their own benefit, as they ought.

Links:

Question 2: Convincing Kids That Ewoks Are Real (18:31)

Should parents convince their kids that fictional creatures, such as Ewoks, are real for the sake of fun? As recounted in Wired, a father told his kids that Ewoks from Star Wars lived in the Sequoia National Forest. On their recent family vacation, they made a game of looking for these imaginary Ewoks. Afterwards, the father photoshopped a few Ewoks into the family vacation pictures. Are these kinds of deceptions harmless or are they bad parenting? The father said: "Maybe I'm a little wrong for lying to her and falsifying the pictures, but I don't care. She'll never forget the time she spent in the big woods with Ewoks."

My Answer, In Brief: Lying to your kids, even if for fun, has pernicious consequences, including on your kids' trust in you and confidence in themselves. Instead, play a game of pretend! Everyone will have fun, without the dishonesty hangover.

Links:

Question 3: Donating Sperm or Eggs Anonymously (32:11)

Is it moral to anonymously donate sperm or eggs, not knowing how the resulting children will be raised? Is the answer the same for donating fertilized embryos left over from an in vitro fertilization procedure, where the DNA is both yours and your spouse's?

My Answer, In Brief: Given that (1) DNA does not have any magic power to carry moral responsibility, (2) that sperm, eggs, and embryos are not actual persons, and (3) that most people in our culture will raise a child in a loving and decent way, it's perfectly moral to donate sperm, eggs, or embryos without knowing anything about the parents who will use them.

Links:

Question 4: Revealing Atheism to Inquisitive Strangers (48:44)

Should I reveal my atheism to strangers when asked? I work at a hospital. One night a patient asked me if I'm religious. I answered yes. He then asked me if I believed that Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins. I answered yes. Then he took my hand and prayed for me. Immediately, I felt guilty, because I lied in answering these questions. In fact, I'm an atheist. The next day, I told the patient the truth, and he thanked me for my honesty. What should I have done in answering his original questions?

My Answer, In Brief: Honesty is a virtue, and fully applicable here. So when asked personal questions by strangers, the proper response is to either answer the question honestly or decline to answer it.

Links:

Rapid Fire Questions (58:36)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

  • What do you think of Newt Gingrich for president?
  • How can you read Atlas Shrugged in today's political climate and not totally freak out? I'm waiting for Obama to announce the implementation of Directive 10-289 any day now.
Conclusion (1:04:03)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it's not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we're doing, please contribute to the webcast's tip jar!

If you'd like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you've contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we're so grateful for that! Also, whether you're able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.

Listen Now:


icon for podbean  Standard Podcasts [01:05:07m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (207)

Comments (0)   |   *****(0 ratings)

NoodleCast #108: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

Filed under: Uncategorized — dianahsieh @ 12:00 pm

On Sunday, 4 December 2011, I broadcast a new episode of my live Philosophy in Action Webcast, where I answer questions on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a virtuous, happy, and free life in a live, hour-long webcast. The webcast is broadcast live every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. In the webcast, I broadcast on video, Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers is on audio, and the audience is in a text chat.

As usual, if you can't attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you'll join the live webcast, because that's more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 4 December 2011

Listen Now

    Duration: 1:05:07
Download the Episode Subscribe to the Feed The Segments: Episode: 4 December 2011

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

This week, I submitted a proposal for a talk on the follies of animal rights to the upcoming Ancestral Health Symposium in Boston in August. Ari Armstrong and I reviewed the galley proofs of our article on abortion rights for The Objective Standard. On Wednesday, Ari and I will discuss Colorado's campaign finance laws at Liberty on the Rocks in Denver.

Question 1: The Principle of Sustainability (4:13)

What's wrong with the principle of sustainability? In the discussion of "sustainable agriculture" in your October 9th webcast, you didn't explain the problem with the basic principle of the "sustainability movement," namely "that we must meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Doesn't that just mean respecting rights? If not, what does it mean and why is it wrong?

My Answer, In Brief: The principle of sustainability must be understood in its proper ideological context of collectivism, egalitarianism, and environmentalism. Understood that way, it's clearly demanding that people not exploit finite resources for their own benefit, as they ought.

Links:

Question 2: Convincing Kids That Ewoks Are Real (18:31)

Should parents convince their kids that fictional creatures, such as Ewoks, are real for the sake of fun? As recounted in Wired, a father told his kids that Ewoks from Star Wars lived in the Sequoia National Forest. On their recent family vacation, they made a game of looking for these imaginary Ewoks. Afterwards, the father photoshopped a few Ewoks into the family vacation pictures. Are these kinds of deceptions harmless or are they bad parenting? The father said: "Maybe I'm a little wrong for lying to her and falsifying the pictures, but I don't care. She'll never forget the time she spent in the big woods with Ewoks."

My Answer, In Brief: Lying to your kids, even if for fun, has pernicious consequences, including on your kids' trust in you and confidence in themselves. Instead, play a game of pretend! Everyone will have fun, without the dishonesty hangover.

Links:

Question 3: Donating Sperm or Eggs Anonymously (32:11)

Is it moral to anonymously donate sperm or eggs, not knowing how the resulting children will be raised? Is the answer the same for donating fertilized embryos left over from an in vitro fertilization procedure, where the DNA is both yours and your spouse's?

My Answer, In Brief: Given that (1) DNA does not have any magic power to carry moral responsibility, (2) that sperm, eggs, and embryos are not actual persons, and (3) that most people in our culture will raise a child in a loving and decent way, it's perfectly moral to donate sperm, eggs, or embryos without knowing anything about the parents who will use them.

Links:

Question 4: Revealing Atheism to Inquisitive Strangers (48:44)

Should I reveal my atheism to strangers when asked? I work at a hospital. One night a patient asked me if I'm religious. I answered yes. He then asked me if I believed that Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins. I answered yes. Then he took my hand and prayed for me. Immediately, I felt guilty, because I lied in answering these questions. In fact, I'm an atheist. The next day, I told the patient the truth, and he thanked me for my honesty. What should I have done in answering his original questions?

My Answer, In Brief: Honesty is a virtue, and fully applicable here. So when asked personal questions by strangers, the proper response is to either answer the question honestly or decline to answer it.

Links:

Rapid Fire Questions (58:36)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

  • What do you think of Newt Gingrich for president?
  • How can you read Atlas Shrugged in today's political climate and not totally freak out? I'm waiting for Obama to announce the implementation of Directive 10-289 any day now.
Conclusion (1:04:03)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it's not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we're doing, please contribute to the webcast's tip jar!

If you'd like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you've contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we're so grateful for that! Also, whether you're able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.

Comments (0)   |   *****(0 ratings)

November 27 2011

NoodleCast #107: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

Filed under: Uncategorized — dianahsieh @ 10:00 am

On Sunday, 27 November 2011, I broadcast a new episode of my live Philosophy in Action Webcast, where I answer questions on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a virtuous, happy, and free life in a live, hour-long webcast. The webcast is broadcast live every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. In the webcast, I broadcast on video, Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers is on audio, and the audience is in a text chat.

As usual, if you can't attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you'll join the live webcast, because that's more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 27 November 2011

Listen Now

    Duration: 1:01:47
Download the Episode Subscribe to the Feed The Segments: Episode: 27 November 2011

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

Happy Post-Thanksgiving Dieting! Unfortunately, my ancient horse Tara died unexpectedly on Tuesday. Ari Armstrong and I have been busy making the final edits on our paper on abortion rights for The Objective Standard.

Question 1: The Wisdom of Friends with Benefits (3:31)

Are "friends with benefits" relationships a mistake? It is moral and/or wise to pursue sexual relationships with friends, even though you're not in a romantic relationship? What are some of the benefits and/or pitfalls? If it's a mistake, what should a person do to avoid such entanglements?

My Answer, In Brief: Sex is not some kind of hobby that you can add to friendship. It's an inherently intimate act; it's not compatible with mere friendship; and it often results in dishonest with yourself and your friend. The better alternative for people uninterested in a serious relationship is to date unseriously.

Links:

Question 2: Obligations to Help Others in Need (17:13)

Do we have an obligation to help others in need? Many people think that the need of others creates an obligation to help. Is that right or wrong? Why? When should a person help others?

My Answer, In Brief: All the arguments for moral obligations based on need fail. Every person's life – and hence, every person's needs – are his own responsibility. Moral obligations arise from a person's choices, and ought to be based on shared values and interests, not mere need.

Links:

Question 3: Supporting Political Compromises (34:51)

When is it morally right or wrong to support political compromises? The marijuana legalization initiative for the 2012 Colorado ballot also specifies open-ended taxation that circumvents the protections of TABOR (the Taxpayer Bill of Rights). It specifies that the first $40 million raised goes to government schools. Both of these taxation items are compromises added to get voters to accept the marijuana legalization. Is it ethical to support more taxation to get more freedom from drug laws? Is it okay to circulate petitions to get this on the ballot so the voters can decide? More generally, when if ever should a person support political compromises that uphold some rights but violate others?

My Answer, In Brief: With mixed legislation, you need to examine the good and the bad, with particular emphasis on precedents set by the law. Sometimes, like with this measure, you should support it because the good hugely outweighs the bad, but that's not always the case.

Links:

Question 4: Lying to a Dying Person (45:23)

Is it wrong to lie to a person on their deathbed? Is lying in such cases justified so that the dying person can "go in peace"? For instance, a man might tell his fellow soldier dying on the battlefield that his heroism helped win a critical victory, even if it actually made no difference. Or a nurse might tell a dying mother desperate to make peace with her long-estranged daughter that the daughter called to tell her she loves her, even if that didn't happen. Is that wrong? If so, what's the harm?

My Answer, In Brief: Honesty is a virtue, even in dealings with a person dying. To die in peace means to die in harmony with the facts, not in a state of blissful ignorance or blind evasion.

Rapid Fire Questions (55:19)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

  • What do you think of the argument that it in a modern society it is wrong to not feed everyone that is starving when we are capable of producing enough food to do so?
  • What do you think of Terry Goodkind's novels?
  • What do you think of the term "anti-choice" to describe people who oppose abortion?
  • Have you gleaned any moral lessons from caring for Dr. Gimpy these past few months?
Conclusion (1:00:42)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it's not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we're doing, please contribute to the webcast's tip jar!

If you'd like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you've contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we're so grateful for that! Also, whether you're able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.

Listen Now:


icon for podbean  Standard Podcasts [1:01:47m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (221)

Comments (0)   |   *****(0 ratings)

November 21 2011

NoodleCast #106: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

Filed under: Uncategorized — dianahsieh @ 10:00 am

On Sunday, 20 November 2011, I broadcast a new episode of my live Philosophy in Action Webcast, where I answer questions on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a virtuous, happy, and free life in a live, hour-long webcast. The webcast is broadcast live every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. In the webcast, I broadcast on video, Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers is on audio, and the audience is in a text chat.

As usual, if you can't attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you'll join the live webcast, because that's more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 20 November 2011

Listen Now

    Duration: 1:04:19
Download the Episode Subscribe to the Feed The Segments: Episode: 20 November 2011

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

Happily, Dr. Gimpy is doing great! I've been editing the paper that Ari Armstrong and I are writing on abortion, as well as updating and improving the new web site for Philosophy in Action.

Question 1: The Meaning of Citizenship in a Free Society (4:01)

What should it mean for a person to be a citizen of country? Suppose that America were a free country, with open borders. What would be the difference between a long-term resident and a citizen? How would that affect a person's relationship to the government? How would a person (including someone born in the US) become a citizen? Could a person be a citizen of two countries?

My Answer, In Brief: In a free society, a citizen must be loyal to basic principles of country, in word (by swearing allegiance to the constitution) and deed (by voluntarily financing the government). That would entitle the citizen to extra protections by the government, as well as the right to participate in the government by voting and more. Other people, so long as not hostile or criminal, would be free to live and work in the country as residents, with their rights protected.

Links:

Question 2: The Legal Status of Automatic Weapons (23:37)

Should it be legal for civilians to own fully automatic weapons? At present, civilians can only own full-auto firearms by special permission of the US Treasury. In a free society, would such weapons be banned or regulated, such that only members of the police and military could access them? As a law-abiding civilian, am I somehow violating someone else's rights by owning an M-16 fully automatic rifle – as opposed to the virtually identical (and currently legal) semi-automatic AR-15 rifle?

My Answer, In Brief: The critical question to ask with any potentially dangerous property is whether mere ownership constitutes a threat to others. That's not true of firearms, including fully automatic weapons.

Links:

Question 3: Forcing Religious Fanaticism on Others (36.25)

Why do religious fanatics seek to impose their beliefs on others? Most religious fanatics aren't content to practice their religion for themselves: they seek to impose it on others by law. Why is that? Why is that wrong? What can be done to combat it?

My Answer, In Brief: For myriad reasons, the politics that naturally flows from religious faith is forced obedience, not freedom.

Links:

Question 4: Reasoning by Facts Rather than Emotions (43:10)

How do I know that I’m reasoning based on facts, rather than just being driven by my emotions? Often, I feel strong emotions on some personal or political issue. How do I know that I'm not rationalizing what I want to be true?

My Answer, In Brief: By monitoring his thinking, a person can notice the many signs of rationalizing feelings rather than reasoning based on facts. Introspection is the key to noticing and solving this problem.

Rapid Fire Questions (54:18)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

  • Is jury nullification ever justified?
  • When saying the Pledge of Allegiance, what should be one's policy concerning "under God"? Should one simply leave out those words?
  • Is there anything wrong with being strongly attracted to certain unchosen traits in a potential romantic partner (e.g. blonde vs brunette, short vs tall, race, etc)?
  • I know many people who supposedly share my same rational, egoistic, pro-freedom philosophy – but they're unpleasant jerks! How can this be, if we're all committed to reason and happiness?
  • What do you think of the idea of a "temporary marriage", as Mexico has instituted?
  • What do you think about the Joe Paterno situation at Penn State? Specificaally, how should someone handle receiving second-hand allegations?
Conclusion (1:02:53)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it's not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we're doing, please contribute to the webcast's tip jar!

If you'd like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you've contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we're so grateful for that! Also, whether you're able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.

Listen Now:


icon for podbean  Standard Podcasts [1:04:19m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (247)

Comments (0)   |   *****(0 ratings)

November 14 2011

NoodleCast #105: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

Filed under: Uncategorized — dianahsieh @ 8:00 am

On Sunday, 13 November 2011, I broadcast a new episode of my live Philosophy in Action Webcast, where I answer questions on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a virtuous, happy, and free life in a live, hour-long webcast. The webcast is broadcast live every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. In the webcast, I broadcast on video, Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers is on audio, and the audience is in a text chat.

As usual, if you can't attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you'll join the live webcast, because that's more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 13 November 2011

Listen Now

    Duration: 1:02:41
Download the Episode Subscribe to the Feed The Segments: Episode: 13 November 2011

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

Dr. Gimpy has moved from crutches to a cane! Hooray! I've been making tweaks to the new web site, in between talking to high school students in Frisco (Colorado) about The Fountainhead and Objectivism and attending FreedomWorks' BlogCon 2011.

Question 1: Admitting Mistakes (4:23)

Should you always own up to your mistakes? Recently, I made a huge mistake at work, accidentally discarding some very important files. When inquiry was made, I denied knowing anything about it. Should I have fessed up?

My Answer, In Brief: Everyone makes mistakes, and it's neither moral nor practical to conceal your mistakes by deception. Don't evade your problems – face them openly and fix them!

Links:

Question 2: Aesthetic Body Modifications (22:19)

What kinds of aesthetic body modifications are moral or immoral? What differentiates piercing your ears from circumcision? Is tattooing moral? Does the amount of tattoos matter? What about stretching, piercing kids' ears, scarring, dying hair, plastic surgery, and so on? Where do you draw the line – and why?

My Answer, In Brief: A person needs to think seriously about the purpose, value, and costs of any aesthetic body modification. It's not enough to want it now: you need to know that you'll happy with it in years to come.

Question 3: Evasion Versus Rationalization Versus Context-Dropping (33:43)

How are evasion, rationalization, and context-dropping similar and different? When thinking over a problem I notice that these terms can often be applied simultaneously. So what do they mean – and how are they similar and different?

My Answer, In Brief: Evasion is the fundamental phenomena, and the source of evil. Rationalization and context-dropping are two common methods of concealing and thereby assisting that evasion.

Links:

Question 4: Declining Too-Expensive Outings (42:40)

How can I politely decline outings with friends that I cannot afford? Recently, a friend proposed an outing that was far too costly for my limited budget. In such cases, how do you recommend telling the person that it's too pricey? If the person then offers to pay my way, is it wrong to accept that? I don't want to be an object of charity, nor pressure my friends into paying for me in any way.

My Answer, In Brief: You should be be up-front about the fact that you can't afford the outing, and propose an alternative within your budget.

Rapid Fire Questions (48:56)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

  • What kind of respect is due to people to whom we owe a great personal debt, but who sometimes say or do things publicly that we disagree with?
  • What's the point of adhering to conventions in clothing, e.g. casual versus business versus formal?
  • What do you think of Occupy Wall Street?
  • How do you deal with people who flirt with your attractive girlfriend or boyfriend?
  • What do you think of a person who hits on married women?
  • Voting for or against a measure on the basis of who advocates them is second-handed, yes?
  • Why do online arguments about very peripheral and non-essential values (e.g., Android vs. iPhone) generate such intense fervor almost akin to a medieval religious debate?
Conclusion (1:01:43)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it's not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we're doing, please contribute to the webcast's tip jar!

If you'd like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you've contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we're so grateful for that! Also, whether you're able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.

Listen Now:


icon for podbean  Standard Podcasts [1:02:41m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (393)

Comments (0)   |   *****(0 ratings)

November 8 2011

NoodleCast #104: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

Filed under: Uncategorized — dianahsieh @ 8:00 am

On Sunday, 6 November 2011, I broadcast a new episode of my live Philosophy in Action Webcast, where I answer questions on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a virtuous, happy, and free life in a live, hour-long webcast. The webcast is broadcast live every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. In the webcast, I broadcast on video, Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers is on audio, and the audience is in a text chat.

As usual, if you can't attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you'll join the live webcast, because that's more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 6 November 2011

Listen Now

    Duration: 1:01:59
Download the Episode Subscribe to the Feed The Segments: Episode: 6 November 2011

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

As usual, I've been tending to Dr. Gimpy. Mostly though, I'm thrilled to announce the new web site for the webcast: Philosophy in Action! Be sure to check out the archives and the new options for contributing!

Question 1: Working for a Minister (5:28)

Is working for a minister giving religion moral sanction? As an atheist, I once worked for an ordained minster who was the owner of a gallery. I became his manager when I made it clear that I was an atheist, but that I was a good framing manager. I don't think I gave him a moral sanction for his irrationality by working for him under those terms. What do you think?

My Answer, In Brief: An atheist shouldn't want to endorse or assist religion, but that doesn't preclude secular business relationships with religious believers.

Question 2: Giving Away Unhealthy Food (17:16)

Is it immoral to give away food that you regard as unhealthy? Assuming that one believes (as I do) that candy and sweets are harmful to health (especially in quantity), is it immoral to participate in trick-or-treat by giving children candy when they come to your door? Or, is it immoral to "dispose" of an unwanted gift of, say, a rich chocolate cake by leaving it by the coffee machine at work to be quickly scarfed up by one's co-workers (as an alternative to simply discarding it)? Is the morality of these two cases different because in one case the recipients are children while in the other case they are adults?

My Answer, In Brief: If I give a person something, it's because I value them. So I'd rather not give people something damaging, particularly if they're oblivious to its dangers. Ultimately, however, people are going to make their own decisions about what to eat.

Links:

Question 3: Voting for Horrible Politicians (30:07)

All the candidates are nearly perfectly horrid, just in different ways. Why should I even bother to vote?

My Answer, In Brief: We're not always faced with choice between two varieties of evil in elections, and in those cases, it's proper to vote. Also, it's good to vote for ballot measures. So vote selectively!

Question 4: Celebrating Holidays (37:20)

What is the value of celebrating holidays? How do you think holidays should or should not be celebrated? Also, what is your favorite holiday and how do you like to celebrate it?

My Answer, In Brief: The joy of holidays is not just a break from ordinary life but also a sense of personal integration and community fellowship. Holidays should be celebrated selfishly, so that they're meaningful and enjoyable!

Rapid Fire Questions (44:09)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

  • Ayn Rand said publicly that homosexuality was immoral and disgusting. If you were around at the time, would you say publicly that her view was "horribly ignorant, armchair philosophizing at its worst ... truly unjustified and unjust" – as you said about Dr. Peikoff's views of transexuals?
  • What do you think of Dr. Hurd's strategy of voting in anyone including Romney just to get rid of Obama?
  • Why is Gary Johnson being excluded from the debates?
  • Does Herman Cain really want to ban abortion?
  • What's wrong with Roe v Wade?
  • To what degree has Cain benefitted from affirmative action and white guilt?
  • Is instituting daylight savings time a proper function of government?
  • What is your favorite holiday music?
Conclusion (1:00:36)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it's not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we're doing, please contribute to the webcast's tip jar!

If you'd like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you've contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we're so grateful for that! Also, whether you're able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.

Listen Now:


icon for podbean  Standard Podcasts [1:01:59m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (291)

Comments (0)   |   *****(0 ratings)

October 31 2011

NoodleCast #103: Live Rationally Selfish Webcast

Filed under: Uncategorized — dianahsieh @ 10:00 am

On Sunday, 30 October 2011, I hosted another episode of my live Rationally Selfish Webcast, where I answered questions from viewers on practical ethics and the principles of living well. The live webcasts are held every Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. The webcast consists of me broadcasting on video, Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers on audio, and the audience in a text chat.

As usual, an audio recording of Sunday's live webcast is now available as a NoodleCast podcast. To get these podcasts automatically, you can subscribe to the feed in iTunes -- just choose either the enhanced M4A format or the standard MP3 format. They're the same content, but the M4A format breaks each question into its own "chapter."

While the Rationally Selfish Webcast (and Podcast) is available to anyone free of charge, it's not free for us to produce. It requires time, effort, and expense. So if you enjoy it, please contribute to our tip jar. We suggest $5 per episode or $20 per month, but any amount is appreciated.

If you prefer to send a check, please write "RS Webcast" in the memo field and send it to "Diana Hsieh; P.O. Box 851; Sedalia, CO 80135."

Whether you contribute or not, please do submit and vote on questions on the widget on the page for the Rationally Selfish Webcast -- or via Idea Informer.

The Video

The full video for the webcast is only available to live attendees. Now, you can listen and/or download the audio podcast. However, I'll post my favorite segments of video to my YouTube channel later this week.

The Podcast

Listen Now

    Duration: 1:01:16

Download the Episode Subscribe to the Feed In This Episode

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

As usual, I've been tending to Dr. Gimpy. I've also been working on a paper on abortion with Ari Armstrong for The Objective Standard. This will be the last "Rationally Selfish" webcast: next week we'll be "Philosophy in Action"! (Hooray!) Finally, last week I saw Matt Nathanson and Scars on 45 on tour, and they were both awesome!

Question 1: The Purpose of Bankruptcy Law (3:34)

What is the proper purpose of bankruptcy laws? When should a person renegotiate his debt with lenders, if ever? Should a person be able to wipe his debt clean by going into bankruptcy? In your July 10, 2011 webcast discussion of strategic default on mortgages, you suggested that a person shouldn't be able to do that, but shouldn't lenders be responsible for who they lend money to?

My Answer, In Brief: The purpose of bankruptcy law not to give people a fresh start, but rather to peacefully and fairly resolve conflicts that arise between the debtor and his creditors when the debtor is truly unable to pay his debts.

Links:

Question 2: Restrooms for the Transgendered in Transition (22:00)

Which bathroom should a pre-operative transgendered person use? The brutal attack at McDonald's on a transgendered person in April 2011 was apparently started because that person used the ladies restroom, which was already occupied by a 14 year old. Was the transgendered person wrong to use that restroom?

My Answer, In Brief: Transgendered people deserve to be treated with respect, just like everyone else! As for restrooms, they should use whatever restroom matches their outward appearance.

Links:

Question 3: Private Versus State Prisons (41:45)

Should prisons be run by the state or private companies? After reading this Huffington Post article, I wonder whether prisons should be run by private companies or the state. I tend to think private is almost always better than anything state-run, but the current system of private prisons seems to be corrupt at best. More generally, what would a prison system look like in a free society?

My Answer, In Brief: Private prisons aren't more or less of a problem than state-run prisons, since any prison must be either run by or funded and overseen by the government. The crucial problem is that far too many people in prison are innocent of any real crime.

Links:

Question 4: Revealing Atheism to Religious Parents (47:04)

How much should I tell my parents about my beliefs, given that I'm still financially dependent on them? I'm in college, and if I told my parents that I'm an atheist, they'd probably stop paying my tuition. Should I tell them now, or wait until I'm done with college?

My Answer, In Brief: A person in college is not obliged to tell his parents everything, but to live a lie or seek values from others under false pretenses is self-destructive.

Rapid Fire Questions (51:15)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

  • Does the Bible condemn abortion, as many Christians say?
  • Doesn't Christianity deserve praise for introducing individualism into Western culture?
  • Can a person be an honest deist?
Conclusion (59:13)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

If you enjoyed this episode, please don't forget to contribute to our tip jar! Also, remember to submit and vote on questions in the the ongoing question queue!

Listen Now:


icon for podbean  Standard Podcasts [1:01:16m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (245)

Comments (0)   |   *****(0 ratings)

October 24 2011

NoodleCast #102: Live Rationally Selfish Webcast

Filed under: Uncategorized — dianahsieh @ 9:00 am

On Sunday, 23 October 2011, I hosted another episode of my live Rationally Selfish Webcast, where I answered questions from viewers on practical ethics and the principles of living well. The live webcasts are held every Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. The webcast consists of me broadcasting on video, Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers on audio, and the audience in a text chat.

As usual, an audio recording of Sunday's live webcast is now available as a NoodleCast podcast. To get these podcasts automatically, you can subscribe to the feed in iTunes -- just choose either the enhanced M4A format or the standard MP3 format. They're the same content, but the M4A format breaks each question into its own "chapter."

While the Rationally Selfish Webcast (and Podcast) is available to anyone free of charge, it's not free for us to produce. It requires time, effort, and expense. So if you enjoy it, please contribute to our tip jar. We suggest $5 per episode or $20 per month, but any amount is appreciated.

If you prefer to send a check, please write "RS Webcast" in the memo field and send it to "Diana Hsieh; P.O. Box 851; Sedalia, CO 80135."

Whether you contribute or not, please do submit and vote on questions on the widget on the page for the Rationally Selfish Webcast -- or via Idea Informer.

The Video

The full video for the webcast is only available to live attendees. Now, you can listen and/or download the audio podcast. However, I'll post my favorite segments of video to my YouTube channel later this week.

The Podcast

Listen Now

    Duration: 1:07:10

Download the Episode Subscribe to the Feed In This Episode

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

As usual, I've been tending to Dr. Gimpy. I've also been programming for new web site, particularly splitting the audio files per question for the archives. Everything should be ready for launch in the first webcast in November, if not a bit sooner!

Question 1: State Involvement in Marriage (5:14)

Should the state be involved in marriage contracts? Many people say that gay marriage shouldn't be a political issue, because the state shouldn't be involved in defining marriage at all. Is that right? Why or why not?

My Answer, In Brief: We ought to separate politics and marriage, by treating marriage like any other contract. The state has a limited but crucial role to play in marriage to ensure that marriage contracts are objective, voluntary, and enforced. However, the state should not play social engineer by deciding who can get married or the terms of that marriage.

Question 2: Last Names in Marriage (29:22)

Should women adopt the last names of their husbands? In today's culture, some newly-married women adopt the family name of their husbands. Some keep their own last name. Some hyphenate their names together. Some use their maiden name for work, but their married name in their personal life. Some couples adopt a wholly new name for themselves. What do you think of these various options? Should the possibility of divorce affect a woman's decision? Should the husband have a say in the woman's decision? Should men be more willing to change their own last name to that of their new wife?

My Answer, In Brief: A married couple has a wide range of options in last names, and they ought to choose whatever suits them best... except hyphenation.

Question 3: Marrying Someone for a Green Card (50:14)

Is it moral to marry someone just to obtain a green card? Given the difficulties of immigrating to the United States, is it immoral to circumvent those bad laws by marrying someone solely to obtain a green card? Would it matter if the person were a good friend?

My Answer, In Brief: America's current immigration laws systematically violate rights, so it's not immoral to break them per se. But in this case, the sacrifice required would likely be too great.

Links:

Question 4: Being Too Much Crazy in Love (55:52)

Is it irrational to be "crazy in love" with your boyfriend or girlfriend -- such as wanting to keep an old shirt and other discarded items? Does it matter whether the relationship is in an early or later stage?

My Answer, In Brief: Everything depends on what, how, and why is done, but people shouldn't invent attachments that don't yet or might never exist.

Rapid Fire Questions (1:01:32)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

  • Can it be written in the marriage contract that anyone can end their marriage at will?
  • What should you do to defuse an e-mail conversation that has gotten too heated?
Conclusion (1:05:14)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

If you enjoyed this episode, please don't forget to contribute to our tip jar! Also, remember to submit and vote on questions in the the ongoing question queue!

Listen Now:


icon for podbean  Standard Podcasts [1:07:10m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (284)

Comments (0)   |   *****(0 ratings)
« Previous entries ·